Article Analysis on Marijuana

Medical Marijuana? A modern woman has human immunodeficiency virus. In particular, she has had human immunodeficiency virus for 7 years. She assure it from her boyfriend after her commencement ceremony sexual experience. Unfortunately, she has interpreted a turn for the worse. Her tree trunk is now deteriorating. She is oddment through cachexia, what one would refer to as HIV wasting syndrome. Cachexia defined, is the physical wasting and malnutrition of the body that is associated with chronic disease. HIV wasting syndrome ca mathematical functions infected people to lose weight and to suffer from damaging diarrhea, among embodimenter(a)(a) things. She is al sorts in an extensive amount of infliction, affecting numerous parts of her body.The physicians that she visits ca-ca tried boundless portion outments to alleviate her suffering however, nonhing seems to work. in that location is an data- base medicine, on the other hand, whose efficacy to alleviate HIV wast ing symptoms is being tested now. The medicate that could back up ease this young womans pain and suffering is locoweednabis or, in other words, cannabis. Marijuana, in most states, is said to have no checkup benefits. Therefore, it is considered a scroll 1 controlled medicine by the national regime. This means that marihuana can non be utilise as treatment for some(prenominal) checkup checkup conditions or ailments.The young girl now faces the grim globe that something out there may be able-bodied to lessen her suffering, but because of politicsally mandated laws, she will not be able to obtain it lawfully. umpteen American citizens face this scenario each year. Whether hemp is illegal or not is not up for debate in this essay. What is up for discussion is if marihuana can be used as an rough-and-ready drug to extend aesculapianly defined sick individuals with relief from what ails them. As afore mentioned, this essay is to discuss the legalization or continue illegalization of medical marihuana for the interest group of the many citizens in poor health. David G.Evans wrote a letter to the Time magazine editor entitled, Medical Marijuana an oxymoron. David G. Evans postulates that the national goernment should continue the prohibition of Medical Marijuana. His most warrant personal credit line is the fact that the Food and medicate brass instrument has nevertheless to approve medical cannabis for medical use (Evans par. 2). On the other hand, Kevin OBrien and nib A. Clark argue for the legalization of medical marijuana in motivatinged cause. They claim that in some instances medical marijuana is the only general anatomy of medicine that is effective. They twain collaborated to write the vitrine study dumbfounds and Son the subject field ofMedical Marijuana. A threesome phrase will be used to discredit or reinforce each clauses claims in a judicious indiscriminate manner. The third clause is a research news report compose by Tia Taylor from the American College of Physicians. The hold is regarding medical marijuana. This in-depth researched paper has highly researched and admited line of businesss. The research papers goal is to clarify the Physicians headingions for medical marijuana and to argue rea passwords how medical marijuana could be an asset to the medical field. The two articles are good written as thoroughly(p) as principally factual.Notwithstanding, one article is to a niftyer extent persuasive and more than than f really found then the other. The case study Mother and watchword the case of medical marijuana has slightly more reasonable claims, therefore it would seem to have the break dance melodic phrase. In an attempt to be unbiased, a statewide analysis of both articles is needed. This will be through in a way that discusses each motives claims and some of their intrinsic worth. The title of the first article is Medical Marijuana an oxymoron. This articl e is a letter to the editor printed in Time clipping and written by David G. Evans. David G.Evans is the executive director of the sober Schools Coalition, a program that teaches children astir(predicate) the dangers of using drugs. His commercial enterprise qualifications entail knowing information closely marijuana and other disadvantageous drugs. As a result, he is well informed closely issues of drugs as well as being a stern confrontation of anything pro-drug. He machinates a great deal of relevant claims. One such claim is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to approve consume marijuana as medicine (Evans par. 2). This is because smoked marijuana has yet to meet the clinical trial measurings for public use.Many organizations reject marijuana because smoked marijuana is ill-bred or ineffective (Evans par. 4). Marijuana is not a rattling good choice of medicine when compared to other safer and effective drugs. Evans claims that smoking is not the mos t effective way to deliver the drug to the body (Evans par. 5). In addition to not being able to take the superman of marijuana effectively, there are harmful side personal effects that the use of marijuana can create. He claims that marijuana use increases the chances of addiction and drug use among children (Evans par. 7).He also claims that marijuanas continued mainstreaming is obstructing childrens view of it as a dangerous drug. He goes on to say that, the states with pro-medical marijuana initiatives have the highest amount of drug addictions (Evans par. 7). He goes on to end by locution that he is a cancer survivor and he knows how it feels to have feelings of despair (Evans par. 9). He says that he is not against people who actually need medical marijuana. He is in oppositeness to the people who will manipulate the system to support their drug habits (Evans par. 8).The following article is entitled Mother and son the case of medical marijuana from The battle of Hastings Center Report. This second article is a case study done by Kevin 0Brien and puppet A. Clark. The subject of the case study is a family, a mother and her seven-year-old son JJ. JJ is hyperactive and aggressive in fact, he has been like this for most of his life (Clark, OBrien par 1). He has seen numerous physicians as well as had numerous medicines prescribed to help treat his condition (Clark, OBrien 2). Nonetheless, nothing seems to work genuinely effectively.JJs mother began trying to find picks that could by chance help her son. In 2001, she discovered that marijuana could peradventure help her son (Clark, OBrian par. 3). With counsel from her sons physician, she began JJ on a daily victuals of marijuana. Thus far, JJs mother has seen improvement in her sons condition after treating him with medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has helped this young child function. Kevin OBrien and Peter A. Clark have written their opinions in this case study however, this essay will only pore on Peter A. Clarks opinion for the sake of time.Peter A. Clark is an associate professor of health governing and theology at Saint Josephs University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is also the bioethicist for Mercer Health System in Philadelphia. He supports the use of medical marijuana. He reinforces his opinion by using information from eleven scientists commissioned by the president of the United States and ap tailored by the ground of Medicine to study marijuana in 1999 (Clark, OBrian par. 14). The reports say that the benefits of the medical use of marijuana are limited because of the adverse affect of the smoke.They still recommended the use of it if no other options were effective. They also found that administering the drug to sick people does not influence the drug use of the general public. According to the study, marijuana is not a gateway drug and the fact that the government still has not reclassified marijuana as a schedule 2 drug is jeopardizing the health a nd wellbeing of many Americans (Clark, OBrian par. 14). He says that we are now faced with two good and bad consequences marijuana can sometimes work weaken than some conventional methods and marijuana has adverse long-term effects that can lead to addiction (Clark, O Brian par. 5). He also talks about the fact that Marinol is an alternative to marijuana however, it has its shortcomings (Clark, OBrien par. 17). Marinol is a synthetic form of marijuana. Although it negates the negative effects of marijuana, Marinol is very expensive $ euchre dollars for 100 ten-milligram capsules. It is reported by patients that Marinol is very truehearted but weakens severely after continued use. He also says that studies show that marijuana works more effectively than Marinol. That is why marijuana is a better choice of drug than Marinol both costliness and intensity (Clark, OBrian par. 17).He conceives that the only main concerns about medical marijuana are the chances of long-term complicati ons and the fact that the dosage, sometime in the future, will have to be increased (Clark, OBrien par. 18). He ends by saying that it is unacceptable for physicians to refuse to offer medicinal marijuana to patients. Some patients are suffering badly and tralatitious treatments are not working for them (Clark, OBrien par. 18). The doctor up is obligated to help the patient by any means necessary. Both of the articles talk about whether or not smoked marijuana is an effective way to administer cannabis to a patient.I believe that this argument is a very important argument in order to show which seed supports their argument with strong, factual evidence. However, to do this effectively another more proven source must be introduced. The third article is a paper written by Tia Taylor from the American College of Physicians titled Supporting investigate into the therapeutic quality of Marijuana. This article is more scientifically based then the other two. The article is a position paper showing the American College of Physicians reasons why they believe the government should support the scientific study of medical marijuana.The position paper has very well written arguments however, to reach a well thought out conclusion for this essay I will only use one positive argument. In Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana, one of the arguments that Tia Taylor writes about is the difference between smoke marijuana and an spokenly administered form of marijuana (American College Par. 22). She says that when first administered, oral tetrahydrocannabinol is more slower reacting than its counterpart is. According to the article, oral THC also produces adverse symptoms that last more extensively han those created from smoking marijuana do (American College Par. 22). The article says that smoked THC imbibes quickly through the bloodstream therefore, the effects are felt quicker than orally administered THC. She ends by saying that in some situation smoked marijuana can be a more appropriate approach than the oral form of THC. At this moment, enough is known on the subject of oral THC opposed to smoke THC to make an informed decision on which author comprehensively argued his position. In his article, Medical marijuana an oxymoron, David G. Evans says that smoked marijuana is an ineffective way to issue THC (Evans par. ). He also says that it is impossible to calculate the medical marijuana dosage this way. He finishes by discussing the adverse effect on health of marijuana. Although Kevin OBrien does not talk about the efficacy of smoked marijuana, he does discuss the dosage problem of marijuana. He says that marijuana is a drug and since it is self-medicated, it is supposed to be cautiously used and not abused (OBrien Par. 10). He also talks about the fact that marijuana is, in the long-term, harmful. However, sometimes there are no other options. Although both authors did not complete a very effective argument, David G.Evans argument is more plausible. His argument, in some ways, follows the analytical standard set. He talks more about facts than Kevin OBrien, who uses more of an emotionally backed argument. The articles from Kevin OBrien and David G. Evans have valid arguments. This part of the essay will see to it the approach that each author took to discuss his respective(prenominal) opinion. Kevin OBriens argument is less based on facts and more based upon emotion. He argues more about the fact that we should be sympathetic for those who need medical marijuana (OBrien Par. 6).He loses a great deal of credibility relaying so heavily on emotion. David G. Evans bases his arguments on facts. He makes a considerable sudor to leave emotion out of his article. He is a cancer survivor and he could have written regarding his own personal battle with a enfeeble disease. However, he decided to make a more factual based argument. So therefore, in my opinion, David G. Evans article is more effective at getti ng his point across. Although this essay is about other authors opinion on a certain subject, this subject is very real today.The national government is in dispute over the issue of medical marijuana, and not just medical marijuana the government is debating whether to legalize marijuana completely. There are issues with medical marijuana that must be resolved before the government downgrades it to a schedule 2 drug. In addition, both authors recognized these issues and discussed them articulately even though they had their own individual biases. The intent of this article is not to show that one of the authors was reclaim and one was wrong, but just to show which author constructed a better argument.What involve to be taken away from this essay is the fact that the government needs to address the issue of medical marijuana right away out. Works citied American College of Physicians. Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana. Philadelphia American College of Ph ysicians 2008 Position Paper. Evans, David G. Medical marijuana an oxymoron? trim & Allergy News 36. 9 (2005) 14+. academic OneFile. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. . Evans, David G. Medical marijuana an oxymoron? Skin & Allergy News 36. 9 (2005) 14+. Academic OneFile. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. .